(Why I darest say, they darest not get offended when they so indeed have examples that violate their own use and nomenclature!) IE: pudding as a specific dessert, puddings as a general term for desserts. Calling something a Yorkshire pudding that is not a pudding and not a dessert.
Why are the British confused about us calling bread rolls “biscuits” when they call bread rolls “puddings”?
Share
Calling a bread roll a “biscuit” really takes the biscuit. The word comes from French, meaning “twice cooked” (bis – cuit). Are bread rolls twice cooked? Of course modern biscuits aren’t twice cooked either but they were originally. As far as I know no Briton calls a bread roll a pudding, though weRead more
Calling a bread roll a “biscuit” really takes the biscuit. The word comes from French, meaning “twice cooked” (bis – cuit). Are bread rolls twice cooked? Of course modern biscuits aren’t twice cooked either but they were originally.
As far as I know no Briton calls a bread roll a pudding, though we do call them lots of other things in different parts of the country, e.g. Baps, Stotties, Buns, Rolls, Bin Lids, Cobs, Batches, Bulkies, Barms, Teacakes, Butties, Nudgers and Blaas (not a complete list).
See lessI have never heard a British person EVER call a bread roll a `pudding`. We DO have arguments….mostly of a regional nature. I`ve heard bread rolls called both baps and barmcakes, for instance. But never, ever, a `pudding`. You are misinformed. Or perhaps you are confusing the term with something elseRead more
I have never heard a British person EVER call a bread roll a `pudding`.
We DO have arguments….mostly of a regional nature. I`ve heard bread rolls called both baps and barmcakes, for instance. But never, ever, a `pudding`. You are misinformed.
Or perhaps you are confusing the term with something else…dessert, afters, or whatever you call the sweet course in the US.
I have many times had a nice scone for pudding. `Pudding `being a common ( if now dated) term used for the second course. It is not the name of the confectionary itself, though, but an indication that it follows the main, usually savoury, course.
See lessWe aren’t, and we don’t. You are misinformed. In Britain, the word ‘biscuit’ means a hard baked cookie, like a graham cracker. Since this is the normal use of this word in the UK, we don’t automatically think of the plain scone-type baked goods for which Americans use the word ‘biscuit’. US EnglishRead more
We aren’t, and we don’t. You are misinformed.
In Britain, the word ‘biscuit’ means a hard baked cookie, like a graham cracker. Since this is the normal use of this word in the UK, we don’t automatically think of the plain scone-type baked goods for which Americans use the word ‘biscuit’. US English is a different dialect of English, and there are many words which have different meanings from U.K. English (jumper, braces, suspenders, tap etc.)
What on earth makes you think we call bread rolls ‘puddings’? In the U.K., pudding is any dessert, not just the blancmange-stuff which Americans use that word for. It is correct in the U.K. to say “I’m having apple pie for pudding.”.
See lessEdward-philips raises a valid and intriguing point about the complexities and contradictions in the use and nomenclature of “pudding” within English, particularly British English. The examples given-“pudding” as a specific dessert, “puddings” as a general term for desserts, and “Yorkshire pudding” aRead more
Edward-philips raises a valid and intriguing point about the complexities and contradictions in the use and nomenclature of “pudding” within English, particularly British English. The examples given-“pudding” as a specific dessert, “puddings” as a general term for desserts, and “Yorkshire pudding” as neither a pudding nor a dessert-perfectly illustrate the fluid, often contradictory nature of language, especially in a global context.
One essential consideration is the historical and regional evolution of language, which often leads to semantic shifts and inconsistencies. “Pudding” originally referred to a savory dish made with meat and grain encased in animal intestines, much like a sausage, which over time also embraced a broader meaning to include a variety of cooked dishes, both sweet and savory. This background explains the seemingly paradoxical presence of “Yorkshire pudding,” a baked batter side dish served typically with roast beef, which is not sweet but carries the traditional “pudding” label due to its historical roots. Meanwhile, “puddings” as a plural in British English can refer to an array of desserts, from steamed suet puddings to custards and gelatin-based sweets, broadening its semantic scope far beyond the American understanding of the word.
Contrast this with American English, where “pudding” almost exclusively signifies a specific, creamy, sweet dessert (like chocolate or vanilla pudding), and the term’s use outside this boundary often seems illogical or contradictory from that viewpoint. This divergence is emblematic of the broader phenomena that others have commented on-that English, as a global language, varies significantly by region, culture, and historical influence. No single user or group “owns” English, nor can anyone justifiably demand uniformity from others. Yet, this plurality can be confusing for learners and speakers engaging across dialects, fueling debates about correctness and usage.
Edward-philips’s point also touches on a linguistic principle: meaning is derived from shared social conventions within specific communities rather than rigid, logical structures. Words often carry layered, overlapping, and sometimes contradictory meanings accepted by native speakers because of tradition, culture, and usage patterns. This makes it challenging-and perhaps unfair-to criticize others for being “offended” or “confused” when encountering these inconsistencies since they are natural outcomes of language evolution.
In conclusion, the apparent contradictions in the use of “pudding” can be best understood as part of English’s rich, dynamic diversity. Claims of inaccuracy or “misuse” overlook the historical, cultural, and regional factors that shape language over time. Rather than seeing such examples as errors, recognizing them as reflections of linguistic heritage and social identity enriches our appreciation of English’s complexity. The question of who has the right to define “correct” usage remains open but highlights the importance of respect, context, and flexibility in intercultural communication.
See lessMost British people understand that the English and American English have drifted slightly away, so that we have different definitions of words. Now, to the British people who insists our naming is incorrect, they need to understand that our language is not the same. Please don’t try to tell me thatRead more
Most British people understand that the English and American English have drifted slightly away, so that we have different definitions of words.
Now, to the British people who insists our naming is incorrect, they need to understand that our language is not the same. Please don’t try to tell me that we speak the same language, because in all honesty we don’t. However, our languages are incredibly similar.
See lessThey might be as confused as to why you keep calling pudding “biscuits”. Step out of your own cultural context for a minute. You do not own English, and there is no reason that the way it is used elsewhere should be understandable to you, or vice versa. If anyone had rights to the language, for thatRead more
They might be as confused as to why you keep calling pudding “biscuits”.
Step out of your own cultural context for a minute. You do not own English, and there is no reason that the way it is used elsewhere should be understandable to you, or vice versa. If anyone had rights to the language, for that matter, it sort of makes sense that it would be English people, right?
But that doesn’t really matter. English is the first language of millions of people around the globe, and the second language of maybe billions. Not only each disparate group out there using it, but actually each person within each group uses it differently. This is the nature of language–it is dynamic. It grows, evolves, regionalizes, incorporates words from other languages, and changes to meet unique cultural context.
It is not the role of English people to account to you for their use and understanding of their own language.
See less